Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Varying algorithyms for the 2x2 Fridrich method?

  1. #1

    Default Varying algorithyms for the 2x2 Fridrich method?

    When looking at Youtube videos and guides online, some of the algorithyms vary from guide to guide.

    I was expecting each Fridich guide to be exactly the same as each other. I've also noticed on some guides, that an algorithym for a particular move, will be shorter than the algorithym used for that exact same move on another guide.

    Why don't all of the shortest algorithyms that can be used for all moves just all get put together in one standard Fridich method, and for that method to be what everyone uses?

    Or am I missing something here? I guess I am, so go easy on me because I'm still new to cubing.

  2. #2
    Member Jedi5412's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Zealand Christchurch
    YouTube
    Jedi5412
    Posts
    381

    Default

    I think it also has to be the alg that suites the cuber best for example

    these are some of the algs for the permutation of the 3x3 cube

    T perm =[R U R' U'] [R' F] [R2 U' R'] U' [R U R' F'
    J jerm = [R' U L'] [U2 R U' R' U2] [R L U']
    j perm b = [R U R' F'] {[R U R' U'] [R' F] [R2 U' R'] U'}
    F perm = [R' U2 R' d'] [R' F'] [R2 U' R' U] [R' F R U' F]
    r perm a and b = very slow awont put algs up


    these are the algs used for the ajacent swap at the end. For me i perfer the T perm like most cubers which isnt the shortest but it is the fastest
    I use the J perm at times but it is reasonable slower
    Meh

  3. #3
    Member qqwref's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA Profile
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube
    qqwref2
    Posts
    7,089

    Default

    Fridyrich is extremely slow foyr 2x2, so that's why noboydy bothers to stayndardize the alygorithms for it. Everyone whyo is eyven the least bit seryious about speedsolving 2x2 will learny sometyhing better, like Ortega (which only hyas like 3 extra algs).
    Computer cube PB averages of 12: [Clock: 5.72] [Pyraminx: 3.33] [Megaminx: 49.52]
    [2x2: 2.66] [3x3: 8.45] [4x4: 29.06] [5x5: 52.69] [6x6: 1:34.78] [7x7: 2:20.34]

  4. #4

    Default

    I guess I just assumed it'd be the best method since it's supposed to be the best for the 3x3

  5. #5
    Member CubicNL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Zutphen
    WCA Profile
    2011WILD01
    YouTube
    CubicNL
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qqwref View Post
    Fridyrich is extremely slow foyr 2x2, so that's why noboydy bothers to stayndardize the alygorithms for it. Everyone whyo is eyven the least bit seryious about speedsolving 2x2 will learny sometyhing better, like Ortega (which only hyas like 3 extra algs).
    This...
    But commenting on Jedi5412 : I personally use R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L for the adjacent swap
    Roux <3

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ponyville
    WCA Profile
    2009WHIT01
    YouTube
    ben1996123
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    R' F R F' R U2 R' U R U2 R'

  7. #7
    Member maggot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    541

    Default

    by fridrich for 2x2 i am assuming LBL method? it is not necessarily slow, given that pll skips happen a lot more than ortega. i think it is also a good transition step for CLL since both methods start with building a layer.

    why dont they use the same algs? well, because some people learn how to solve 2x2 from their 3x3 knowledge, using no extra knowledge. just like ben posted above, some people who take 2x2 seriously wouldnt use an adj swap PLL, T perm J perm. the alg is much shorter and faster (if practiced).

    it is just like 3x3... there are so many things you can do with fridrich as far as customizing your solve. finding your own fingertricks and what algs are the fastest for you is the best way to get fast. some people are not willing to invest time into 2x2, as it does not interest them or they arent as ambitious. hence why we find methods that are catered toward people who understand how to solve a 3x3 but dont want to learn anything new, and methods that are catered toward people who want to break records.

  8. #8
    Member Jedi5412's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Zealand Christchurch
    YouTube
    Jedi5412
    Posts
    381

    Default

    u guys know the fastest adjecent swap alg and the vertical swap alg since the y perm takes ages
    Meh

  9. #9
    Member RCTACameron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    WCA Profile
    2010STOL01
    YouTube
    RCTACameron
    Posts
    1,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n00bCube View Post
    When looking at Youtube videos and guides online, some of the algorithyms vary from guide to guide.

    I was expecting each Fridich guide to be exactly the same as each other. I've also noticed on some guides, that an algorithym for a particular move, will be shorter than the algorithym used for that exact same move on another guide.

    Why don't all of the shortest algorithyms that can be used for all moves just all get put together in one standard Fridich method, and for that method to be what everyone uses?

    Or am I missing something here? I guess I am, so go easy on me because I'm still new to cubing.
    The shortest algorithms aren't necessarily the fastest. I use an 11 move algorithm for the adjacent swap, when I know a 10 move algorithm for it, because I find the 11 move faster. Just use the algorithms you see in the tutorial, then switch to others if you find them faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by n00bCube View Post
    I guess I just assumed it'd be the best method since it's supposed to be the best for the 3x3
    The reason it is very fast for 3x3, but not 2x2, is that because there are less combinations on 2x2, you can do something that takes 2 steps in Fridrich in just 1 using a more advanced 2x2 method, without having to learn hundreds of algorithms.

  10. #10

    Default

    Okay, I guess I could try Ortega, or Guimond (heard that Guimond is supposed to be really fun for some reason).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •